This is 4 pages from the new GL corps. I am really glad that Guy and John stewart(my favorite lantern) got there own book. This is written by Peter J Tomasi, and he does a good job of balancing the honest architect, honorable marine, and rebellious hero sides of Lantern John Stewart.

I mainly wanted to post this part because I was worried about how John would be handled, and I must say throutout the issue Tomasi does a good job. I also wanted to post the part with guy trying to get a coaching job, but that is a whole post in itself.

Anyway the people in charge of a building John is in charge of are trying to convince him to cut corners. Lets see if they can convince him to allow peoples lives to be put in danger in a building he is designing shall we.

a big part in this issue is that everyone knows Guy and Johns identity. Also of note...he can wear the hell out of a suit.

I am noting a theme here just like in the scans of GLC 61 that were posted and in the 80s retroactive that featured john(he convinced sonar to just sell his patents instead of commiting crimes with his weapons)John has a tendency to not only stop people from doing wrong but go into long drawn out detail on how doing the right thing works better in the long run.

And Tomasi also goes back to Johns issue with crooked authority. Even in his very first appearance(before they retconned him as a soldier) he was always someone who questioned the people in power. The retconing of him into the marines works out in this sense, and makes him seem like a more militant peoples champion superhero who proudly served his country but does not hesitate to confront corruption.

Now for some Guy time...

I cant wait to post the portion of guy trying to get a job, it really brings this conversation home. But I am glad John and Guy have such good moments with each other. Over all this was an amazing issue that kind of set the stage for where both of them are in life right now. John and Guy burning a green hole through the galaxy.

Was Wonder Woman really sold out? That... Makes me so happy. I don't think I've ever heard someone say her comic was sold out somewhere. I guess I'm lucky that the guys that go to my LCS are only interested in Yugi-Oh and Pokemon cards then and not comics~.

No one's known what the hell to do with John since Kyle came along in the first place and supplanted all the GLs in one fell swoop. Even when subsequent writers tried to make John more of a prominent character, it never quite clicked. The Justice League show helped a lot, but it was such a different take on the character that it made things even more difficult trying to reconcile "introspective architect who has a problem with authority" with "badass marine, and that's pretty much it." After all this time, it looks like it's Tomasi who's finally found the balance.

I have to disagree with what appears to be a growing consensus around here. I think this is one of the most willfully idiotic things I've ever read. I think I get what the writer was trying to do here: he wanted us to think, 'Oh, look how good and decent John is: he's going above and beyond the legal requirements for safety, and he doesn't care if that makes the building too expensive, and he's standing up the evil businessmen (boo, hiss, Pavlovian negative response) who only care about the bottom line. He's so noble and heroic!'

Noble and heroic with other people's money. He's not offering to pay the extra costs of increased safety himself. And is there any evidence that the legal requirements are insufficient? It is a fact that high-rise office buildings in the United States have excellent safety records. He seems to be randomly accusing them of bribing the building inspector to get approval without actually meeting the legal requirements, but does he have any actual evidence for this accusation? Does he even really believe it himself? If he does, why is he willing to work with them at all? Why isn't he doing his duty as a superhero to gather evidence and bring them and the corrupt official or officials in question to justice? I conclude that he's really just throwing out a random accusation that he doesn't even really believe himself just to justify his temper tantrum.

And a temper tantrum is what it is. He's not so subtly using his power ring to bully and threaten them when they don't just agree to go along with whatever nonsensical demands he makes.

And nonsensical is what they are. Look, the fact is, it does not make sense to spend limitlessly on safety measures. Past a certain point, you really are just wasting money. For example, you could make automobiles much safer by building them like tanks, but that would be insanely expensive, much more expensive than would ever be worthwhile. So we make a judgment call about what level of safety is really necessary. If the actual owners of the building want to go beyond legal requirements for safety, that is certainly their right. But if they decide that they are satisfied with the legal requirements, that's their right also, and if the architect they've hired can't live with that, well, they are also perfectly entitled to hire another architect. John Stewart is in no way entitled to use his magic ring to intimidate them for that.

Sorry, too long, I know. In sum, I find this portrayal of the character of John Stewart to be a stupid, arrogant, and all-around loathsome bully.

No just no and where do i begin. first he was not just talking about natural disasters, but also superhero brawls which demolish buildings in his world. If throwing a few extra bucks can keep B list baddies from knocking down buildings with people in them I am all for it. Second he is an architect and it is his job to build the safest buildings he possibly can, and if he feels they are cutting corners he has every right to let them know. Actually he would be doing an awful job if he kept his mouth shut as the one in charge of every detail.

Obviously he knows these people are corrupt, and the author makes it clear that they are into shady practices. This is literally a 3 page scene showing john at work, since he shars this series with another charachter it would be impossible to detail every bit charachter he runs into at work. Without bogging us with exposition, the writer sets us in a situation where the main charachter knows the people he is dealing with.

Another thing he obviously does not have legal evidence otherwise he would most likely go through legal procedures. But calling them out on their bullshit, and making it clear he wont have any part in their shenanigans and will do what he can to prevent them from putting people at risk is very noble. He was not stupid, loatsome or arrogant in this, more like a weary expert tired of people allowing the greed of others to muck up his craft and put people at risk. He explained his concerns in a clear but flashy way.

I admit he did put those people through some shit, but they underestimated him as a buisness man. They figured haveing him on site was just publicity which is farther from the truth. He got his point across in a way that was sure to make them listen.

Your arguments do not hold water. Granted, super-powered terrorists and criminals are a real threat in the DCU. So what? Are building owners legally liable for the damages such persons do? Are they legally required to build their buildings to withstand supervillain attack? If so, how powerful an attack are we talking about, anyway? Again, if the law does not require them to build to that standard, why is this their responsibility? If John thinks it's so important, let him pay for it with his own money.

It is also emphatically not an architect's job to build the safest building he possibly can. His job is to meet the desires of his client while operating within the law. Should he present them options that he thinks are worth pursuing? Sure, if he wants. Can he make arguments as to why spending more on safety might make better financial sense in the long term? Sure, but if his clients say, 'no, we're satisfied doing what the law requires, and no more,' that's the end of the discussion.

Furthermore, it's not remotely obvious that "he knows they are corrupt," and the author in no way makes it clear that they are "into shady practices." He has John accuse them of that, with no evidence, only after they had shown reluctance to meet his demands. If he had any real reason to believe this, he would have begun by saying 'Look, I know that you've been cutting corners on this building, and bribing the inspectors to get away with it. I don't yet have enough evidence to prove this in court, but if you don't agree to higher safety standards, I'll resign the project and go public with my concerns.' He doesn't do that. Instead, he starts by asking them to accept these beyond-the-legal-requirement standards, as if he thinks they might say yes. If you knew that someone was already bribing inspectors to get around the law, why would you even bother asking them to do more than the law requires? You wouldn't, because it's absurd. He is in no way acting as if he genuinely believes that they are breaking the law.

Also, he does not "put those people through some shit," he assaults them with a deadly weapon. The only person who is breaking the law here is John Stewart. If anything, moreover, they are overestimating him as a businessman and a human being. They clearly seem surprised that he attacks them when they have the temerity to disagree with him.

Furthermore, the brevity of the story, or the need to tell the other main character's story as well, or the fact that the story is being told in a comic book, in no way excuses any of this. If the writer can't do his job properly in the space allotted, he should have stretched the story out over more issues, or changed the story, or otherwise told it differently. There are well-written comics and badly written comics. It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

If you could build your building to the point where they could withstand attacks from comic book villians in comic book world why not. And hell yes an architecht should build the safest building. Just like car manufactures should build the safest cars they can, food makers should make food as clean as they can, etc. When it comes to peoples lives YOU CAN NOT afford to cut corners. Would you want your kids/younger relatives playing on a playground that was built to the clients desires, or one that was guaranteed safe by an honest expert manufacture who did not cut corners in building it. That is why we see so many houses now, people do not give a fuck about what they are building and just throw people inside to live there.

Second point (this is your qoute)

he had any real reason to believe this, he would have begun by saying 'Look, I know that you've been cutting corners on this building, and bribing the inspectors to get away with it. I don't yet have enough evidence to prove this in court, but if you don't agree to higher safety standards, I'll resign the project and go public with my concerns.' (end of your qoute)

That is basically what he said, minus the part about threating to resign(what good would resigning do, that would just be him running away and giving them the chance to find someone else to rollover on). Another thing how many times have we seen batman or superman right in the middle of a situation where they have caught a bad guy, and bring up crimes they have commited off panel. If you look at his charachter john stewart would not accuse someone of a crime without doing his homework first, so it is safe to assume he knows these people without wasting pages on them.

Third: You can't kill with a green lantern ring(unless its in an event or the writer has no fucking idea).Hell unless john clearly wanted it that way he could not give them a papercut with his ring. They were extremly condescending and patronizing. They had no reason to bring in him being a marine or GL, those things did not dictate why him as an architect would want to build a safe building. Not to mention this is a comic book where people have been punched out and threatened for less. Also if you look at it in his universe, if playing a prank on those people was so bad why did the guardians not call him on it.

Lastly this was not meant to be a big focal point of the overlaying storyarc. It is a segway to show john stewart dealing with civilian life before he goes to do GL stuff. And by saying this is a comic I meant that it did not require a four paragraph post .

Also John said it to them himself improving safety, would keep the companies court and liability costs down. So even in looking out for human life he was still attempting to think of the long run for the employer.

If you don't wish to continue this debate, I raise no objection. But your points are still invalid.

To start, you say:"If you could build your building to the point where they could withstand attacks from comic book villians in comic book world why not. And hell yes an architecht should build the safest building. Just like car manufactures should build the safest cars they can, food makers should make food as clean as they can, etc. When it comes to peoples lives YOU CAN NOT afford to cut corners. Would you want your kids/younger relatives playing on a playground that was built to the clients desires, or one that was guaranteed safe by an honest expert manufacture who did not cut corners in building it. That is why we see so many houses now, people do not give a fuck about what they are building and just throw people inside to live there."

If you had read my initial post more carefully, you would see that I already addressed this point. Automakers should not build the safest possible cars; the safest possible car would be a tank. It would cost millions of dollars, get incredibly bad gas mileage, take up an absurd amount of space, be very noisy, and otherwise be a terrible car for civilian use. Likewise, food preparers should not make the safest possible food. You would do that by overcooking everything to the point where it had no flavor or texture, and was otherwise just plain miserable to eat. You would also have to forgo any imported food, drastically increasing the costs. As for your playground example, if I had to pay for the use of the playground, which, presumably, as a taxpayer, I do (where I come from, playgrounds are almost invariably part of public parks and are built and maintained at public expense), of course I would not want it to be as safe as possible. The safest possible playground would have no jungle gym, no swings, no slides, no seesaws, no sandbox, no anything to play on, in fact. It would be simply cease to be a playground.

And that's the point. Safety is a value. It is not the only value or the highest value, and it is simply ridiculous to maintain otherwise. One should spend on safety what is reasonable to spend, based on sound judgment. The safety-above-all position you are advocating reduces to an absurdity.

You further said:"That is basically what he said, minus the part about threating to resign(what good would resigning do, that would just be him running away and giving them the chance to find someone else to rollover on). Another thing how many times have we seen batman or superman right in the middle of a situation where they have caught a bad guy, and bring up crimes they have commited off panel. If you look at his charachter john stewart would not accuse someone of a crime without doing his homework first, so it is safe to assume he knows these people without wasting pages on them."

That is not at all what he said. He talks to them at some length about the nature of his ring. Then they start discussing his safety concerns. Then he assaults them and threatens them. Then, and only then, does he make the point that there might be some advantage to increased safety measures. Then one of them makes the entirely reasonable point that the current plans meet all the relevant safety codes, and then, and only then, does he imply (not state outright, mind you) that they bribed inspectors.

Furthermore, your analogy to other superheroes attacking a villain in medias res where there are references to crimes committed off-panel is invalid, because, again, this is not in medias res. We see the lead-up to the accusation. He makes it almost at random, having in no way behaved up until that point as if he believed it to be true.

It is furthermore absurd to bring up previous characterizations of John Stewart to defend this one. First, obviously, it is entirely up in the air at this point as to what from the past is still in continuity. Secondly, it doesn't matter, because I'm not arguing that the writer meant to portray John badly; I'm sure he meant us to entirely sympathize with John in this incident. My point is that he did his job badly, and actually makes John look like a terrible person. The fact that other writers successfully portrayed John as good in the past is irrelevant.

Also, resigning from the project and going public with his safety concerns would not be "running away" at all, and that argument is illogical. On the contrary, that is exactly what an ethical architect should do if he believes the developer he is working for is not taking proper safety precautions and is bribing building inspectors. What John does here actually is running away: he makes a "clever" comment about how he can't fight city hall and flies off to whine to Guy.

You go on to say:"Third: You can't kill with a green lantern ring(unless its in an event or the writer has no fucking idea).Hell unless john clearly wanted it that way he could not give them a papercut with his ring. They were extremly condescending and patronizing. They had no reason to bring in him being a marine or GL, those things did not dictate why him as an architect would want to build a safe building. Not to mention this is a comic book where people have been punched out and threatened for less. Also if you look at it in his universe, if playing a prank on those people was so bad why did the guardians not call him on it."

Please read the definition of "assault with a deadly weapon." You will find that a power ring would qualify as a deadly weapon in almost any jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not it can be used to kill. Also, power rings have been used to kill in the past, and, a few years back, the Guardians removed the no-kill rule from the rings. Whether any of that is still in continuity is an open question, but it doesn't matter, because what he does here is still immoral and illegal.

And yes, they were condescending and patronizing. So what? Since when does that make it okay for him to assault them?

And yes, in comics, people are sometimes threatened or beaten for less cause than this, but, again, so what? It's wrong when other characters do it too.

And the Guardians did not do anything about this, because, again, the writer clearly did not intend for his audience to think that John was the bad guy here. He clearly intended for us to react the way most of the commenters here, you included, have reacted. So of course he's not going to have other characters point out how badly John is behaving here; he doesn't think John is behaving badly, nor does he expect us to think so. My point is that he has failed as a writer.

Actually, a tank is pretty much an armored car with treads and guns. There's a reason why they are typically manufactured by automakers. In any case, what I thought I expressed pretty clearly is that the safest possible car would be extremely heavy, with massive armor protection, and consequently quite slow. I hope that that more verbose but more precise explanation clears up the confusion you were having.

As to your second point, all you have proven is that you have committed the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. The fact that many people may fall prey to an error does not make the error true. What John does in this scans is still wrong, and the writer clearly did not intend for that to be the case.

Ah, but now it is you who I believe to be incorrect. JLBarnett was very specific to point out it was good "for them". Morality is a tricky thing, one which I find to be fairly subjective. So just because you feel John was in the wrong here, it sems to be that most of us don't (Yes I know that's basically an ad hominem. Let's see how much you can discuss public opinion and not go there ;P ). And I would like to point out that just because the Guardians didn't react to this as badly as you did, it is not bad writing.So, you've made my case, we've made ours, I suggest we just agree to disagree.

Disagree all you like. No one is stopping you. But I believe you mistyped when you wrote that I've made your case.

But you are wrong to say that you are engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem; you are engaged, again, in the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. You are appealing to public opinion on a matter where public opinion is irrelevant. That's because morality is not in the least bit subjective, regardless of how you find it. The people who enjoy this story have, in my opinion, poor taste. The people, and here, again, I include the writer, who think John's actions in this story are anything but immoral and criminal are incorrect as to a question of fact.

One would (hopefully) not take a murderer seriously if his defense were to declare that he doesn't consider murder wrong. It is wrong whether he, you, or anyone else thinks so. Moreover, I am very confident that were I to do to you what John has done to these people here, you would start to see why it's wrong pretty quickly.

Oh, you're right, that wasn't ad hominem. That's what happens when you think one thing and try to type another, I suppose.And I would say that most would say that the person that "wronged" them is absolutely wrong.Okay, done now.

I thought what an ethical architec t should do is let them finish the building, blow it up, then make a several page speech in open court that somehow convinces the jury he was right to do that. (Has recently read the Cliff Notes to "The Fountainhead."

Pfft, just go and work for Bruce Wayne. His oligarchy actually benefits people, like the time he fired the guy who argued that earthquake-proofing all of Wayne Enterprises' building wasn't cost effective. That guy was then crushed to death by falling masonry in the non-WE-owned building he found himself working in, whilst thousands of people were saved by resistant buildings like the Watchtower.

Plus, with the retconning of Alan Scott, John could take his place as Gotham's resident GL.

Nothing concrete. That being said... Guy's interactions with other characters were coloured by his brain damage. Take his tenure in the JLI. The brain damage was a major factor in his interactions with them. With that being removed from continuity, it's not a stretch to suggest that the brain damage is as well.

Extras

Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.